9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 916 - AT - CustomsReclassification of imported goods - Apatite (Ground) Calcium Phosphate - to be classified under CTH 25102030 or under CTH 28352690? - HELD THAT - An absolutely identical issue, also based on parallel inquiry conducted against an identically situated importer viz. MUDRIKA CERAMICS I LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD 2024 (1) TMI 1294 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , was recently decided by this Tribunal, wherein it was held that ' There is nothing on record to suggest that the goods were not natural Calcium Phosphate or Apatite Calcium Phosphate, which require to be classified under CTH 2510 alone being the most specific classification based on description as per General Rules of Interpretation for Tariff.' After detailed examination of Tariff entries as well as HSN Explanatory Notes, this Tribunal concluded that the Calcium Phosphate (Apatite) was required to be classified under CTH 2510 and not under CTH 2835. While no retest or cross examination of the chemical examiner was granted in this case, however, it is noted that the very same overseas supplier viz. Global Ceramics is involved even in the present case and hence, one can safely conclude that for the same supplier related material, once the classification is already concluded by this Tribunal, identical view is required to be taken in this case as well. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
Issues:
- Classification of imported goods - Differential Customs duty demand - Imposition of penalties on the main appellant, director, and CHA firm and its partners Classification of Imported Goods: The judgment revolves around the reclassification of imported "Apatite (Ground) Calcium Phosphate" from CTH 25102030 to CTH 28352690. The appellants argued that the product was natural and not calcined, thus should be classified under CTH 25102030. They cited previous tribunal decisions and technical evidence to support their claim. The tribunal analyzed tariff entries and HSN Explanatory Notes, ultimately concluding that the product falls under CTH 2510. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent classification for goods imported from the same supplier and rejected the revenue department's classification under CTH 2835. Differential Customs Duty Demand: The judgment confirmed a Customs duty demand against the main appellant, along with interest and penalties. The duty and penalties imposed on various parties were detailed in the order. The appellants contested the demand based on the classification of the imported goods. The tribunal's decision to reclassify the goods under CTH 2510 led to the setting aside of the duty demand. Imposition of Penalties: Penalties were imposed on the main appellant, director, CHA firm, and its partners. However, the tribunal found no grounds for penalizing them, as the goods were correctly classified under CTH 2510. The judgment emphasized that penalties were not warranted since the imported goods were natural and not chemically processed, aligning with previous tribunal decisions and technical evidence. In conclusion, the tribunal quashed the impugned orders, allowed the appeals, and provided consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent classification, technical evidence, and legal precedents in determining the classification of imported goods and the subsequent duty demands and penalties.
|
